If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

imported post

I just finished up my PC832 class and wanted to get some opinions from you guys.

My instructor stated that CA is a spirit of the law state. For example if you are traveling at 1 mile over the speed limit you would not get acitation because the speed limit is there for safety purposes. In letter of the law you wouldget a citation for 1 mile over because you are technically breaking the law.

The second thing we talked about in class is that officers need to charge criminals with everything they can when they have an arrest because half of the charges will be dropped by the DA anyways. The DA will most likely use the lesser charges as bargaining chips to get a conviction.

Why don't they apply these same thoughts to gun owners.

For example,you have a Ca defined "assault weapon" at the range, who cares. However,if you were to use the same "weapon" in a crime then it would be tacked onto whatever crime you committed.

When it comes to firearms, so many officers are letter of the law type officers (it seems that way).

It seems that what most of us on here fear is having to defend ourselves for legal activities or even worse going to jailfor a stupid mistake (read "school zone").

imported post

hammerhands32 wrote:

...My instructor stated that CA is a spirit of the law state. For example if you are traveling at 1 mile over the speed limit you would not get acitation because the speed limit is there for safety purposes. In letter of the law you wouldget a citation for 1 mile over because you are technically breaking the law.

The second thing we talked about in class is that officers need to charge criminals with everything they can when they have an arrest because half of the charges will be dropped by the DA anyways. The DA will most likely use the lesser charges as bargaining chips to get a conviction.

Why don't they apply these same thoughts to gun owners.

For example,you have a Ca defined "assault weapon" at the range, who cares. However,if you were to use the same "weapon" in a crime then it would be tacked onto whatever crime you committed.

When it comes to firearms, so many officers are letter of the law type officers (it seems that way).

It seems that what most of us on here fear is having to defend ourselves for legal activities or even worse going to jailfor a stupid mistake (read "school zone")...

Bull-Hockey !!!

#1 don'tbelieve everything your instructor tells you,it is in the "letter of the law"
from the California Vehicle Code 22351.

Very clear it won't stick in court under safe conditions "under 65mph that is", I will PM it to you this is not the forum for traffic school 101 .

Themain reason the DA would bargain is they really don't have a case and neither party wants to go to court.

On the question of "Clinton-California Gun-Ban" Weapon at the range, putyour theory to the test take it to "show and tell at the police station".

imported post

No state or any other jusridiction is a spirit-of-the-law state. They can enforce any law to the letter. Many years ago in SC the speed limit was a SOTL limit and if you could show that it was a safe speed then you would not be charged. However that was changed to be an exact speed. I think this was back in the 60's if I remember correctly.

The enforcement of laws can be the spirit such as the speed limit. In SC normally you are given 5mph on most roads and 10mph on the Interstates. The Captain on the Highway Patrol explained to me that wa primarily due to errors in speedometers and the plain hassle of writing petty tickets. Don't try this with murder as the old "He needed killing" plea rarely works. I have known plenty of people that the LEO have told to put that gun away rather than arrest them. As more than one LEO has told me as long as you behave yourself they don't care. Then there is always the chance of running into the LEO that has had a bad day.

The DA will look at a case and figure which charges will stick and which won't then bargain on the ones that will stick and carry the most punishment to try to work out a deal just to save the courts time and money. How many times does anyone get consecutive sentences. Someone if found guilty of six different crimes and sentenced from one to 10 years for each one. However they run concurrent so he only gets 10 years. The DA and everyone else has wasted their time on proving or fighting the five minor charges. They could have worked out a deal for five years on the one crime and everyone come out better.

imported post

AB wrote:

hammerhands32 wrote:

...My instructor stated that CA is a spirit of the law state. For example if you are traveling at 1 mile over the speed limit you would not get acitation because the speed limit is there for safety purposes. In letter of the law you wouldget a citation for 1 mile over because you are technically breaking the law.

The second thing we talked about in class is that officers need to charge criminals with everything they can when they have an arrest because half of the charges will be dropped by the DA anyways. The DA will most likely use the lesser charges as bargaining chips to get a conviction.

Why don't they apply these same thoughts to gun owners.

For example,you have a Ca defined "assault weapon" at the range, who cares. However,if you were to use the same "weapon" in a crime then it would be tacked onto whatever crime you committed.

When it comes to firearms, so many officers are letter of the law type officers (it seems that way).

It seems that what most of us on here fear is having to defend ourselves for legal activities or even worse going to jailfor a stupid mistake (read "school zone")...

...On the question of "Clinton-California Gun-Ban" Weapon at the range, putyour theory to the test take it to "show and tell at the police station".

Others have done the testing for me showing that this state is a "letter of the law" state. Thanks anyways.

I was not spouting off "My teacher said, so it's true" statements. I just wanted to hear some of the feed back from LE about these statements.

imported post

I was returning from a job site yesterday in a large moving van when we were pulled into the CHP scale in Fairfield, CA. The inspector steps up and asks if everyone is wearing their seatbelt.

Everyone is, except me as my seatbelt is broken. I tell her, she says ok like it is not a big deal. She does the inspection, which we pass, and then asks for my I.D. even though I am not the one driving. When I ask what for, she informs me that I will be getting a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt.

I overreact and say I am not signing the ticket. Sure enough, that type of officer we all love shows up saying he is going to take me to jail for not signing and nobody talks to his inspection people that way (all I said is that I'm not signing any ticket).

I sign the ticket, not wanting the first arrest I ever have to be over a seatbelt. No, I was not polite to the officer afterwords either.

So back on topic, I really think Ca is a letter of the law state.

I never understood how people could actually hate law enforcement before today. One guy trying to be tough and teach me a lesson really leaves a bad taste in your mouth for everybody else.

I am willing to accept citations for things that I do wrong. Raising revenue off a broken seatbelt, in someone else's truck, is another thing.

imported post

hammerhands32 wrote:

I am willing to accept citations for things that I do wrong. Raising revenue off a broken seatbelt, in someone else's truck, is another thing.

[sarcasm]The seatbelt law is there for your protection. Of course, I'm assuming you left out the part where the officers didn't let you drive away without a seatbelt, but instead offered you a ride home so you would be safely belted in... [/sarcasm]

They don't care about your safety. The state needs revenue. I'd say just about any law passed in the last 100 years (maybe longer) is about revenue generation or controlling the sheeple.

I wonder what our founding fathers would do if they were alive and facing the government we face today...

imported post

The question asked in the first post of this thread would be quite unnecessary if we legislated the proscription of only acts of aggression. "Spirit vs letter" only matters when law seeks to prohibit the nonaggressive.

When the crime is murder, how often is it asked "Spirit or letter of the law?"